Left reaction to pharmacists and birth control
Progressives have been scandalized by the recent movement among some pharmacists to refuse take an action, filling birth control prescriptions, they find immoral.
The issue is, I think, a little more complex than it's made out to be. The Washington Post recently had an article on the topic. An excerpt:
The American Pharmacists Association recently reaffirmed its policy that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions as long as they make sure customers can get their medications some other way.
"We don't have a profession of robots. We have a profession of humans. We have to acknowledge that individual pharmacists have individual beliefs," said Susan C. Winckler, the association's vice president for policy and communications. "What we suggest is that they identify those situations ahead of time and have an alternative system set up so the patient has access to their therapy."
The position of the APA seems about right in principal. The article goes on to note that a functioning and hassle-free alternative system often doesn't exist. This, I believe, is where we on the left should focus our energy - ensuring that an easy, alternative way of obtaining the pills exists - not on denying that individuals should have the right to follow their consciences.
Such a principal should be cherished on the left. All too often people must put their jobs at risk for causes that we sympathize with. To denounce this phenomenon when it comes from people with warped ideologies is just hypocrisy.
It should be added that people may have all sorts of crazy moral beliefs that could interfere with their jobs (actually I think one should have some moral objections to most jobs in our society). I think that an employee should be protected as long as adhering to one's ethical beliefs does not conflict with the essence of the job and can be reasonably accommodated.
The Nation article I linked to at the top received the following important comment from a reader that deserves wider attention:
I work for CVS as a pharmacy techncian so I have some perspective on this issue first hand. While I have never seen a case of outright pharmacist refusal to fill a prescription, it is standard policy at our store not to stock emergency contraception and methergine, a drug used to stem bleeding after abortions. I have even heard pharmacists say that EC is basically chemical abortion, although it is clearly contraception and is ineffective if taken by someone already pregnant. This opinion from a supposed medical professional. I have never seen any of our pharmacists offer any assistance to someone seeking PLAN B other than to tell them we don't carry it. The real issue is that the stores do not stock EC and will do everything in their power short of outright refusal to not have to dispense it. While this practice will surely not generate the sensational coverage of pharmacist refusals, it is far more detrimental to women's health as it effectively denies access to emergency contraception and stigmatizes the patient seeking the drug.
Posted by NOTHING_117 05/31/2005 @ 12:23am
The issue is, I think, a little more complex than it's made out to be. The Washington Post recently had an article on the topic. An excerpt:
The American Pharmacists Association recently reaffirmed its policy that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions as long as they make sure customers can get their medications some other way.
"We don't have a profession of robots. We have a profession of humans. We have to acknowledge that individual pharmacists have individual beliefs," said Susan C. Winckler, the association's vice president for policy and communications. "What we suggest is that they identify those situations ahead of time and have an alternative system set up so the patient has access to their therapy."
The position of the APA seems about right in principal. The article goes on to note that a functioning and hassle-free alternative system often doesn't exist. This, I believe, is where we on the left should focus our energy - ensuring that an easy, alternative way of obtaining the pills exists - not on denying that individuals should have the right to follow their consciences.
Such a principal should be cherished on the left. All too often people must put their jobs at risk for causes that we sympathize with. To denounce this phenomenon when it comes from people with warped ideologies is just hypocrisy.
It should be added that people may have all sorts of crazy moral beliefs that could interfere with their jobs (actually I think one should have some moral objections to most jobs in our society). I think that an employee should be protected as long as adhering to one's ethical beliefs does not conflict with the essence of the job and can be reasonably accommodated.
The Nation article I linked to at the top received the following important comment from a reader that deserves wider attention:
I work for CVS as a pharmacy techncian so I have some perspective on this issue first hand. While I have never seen a case of outright pharmacist refusal to fill a prescription, it is standard policy at our store not to stock emergency contraception and methergine, a drug used to stem bleeding after abortions. I have even heard pharmacists say that EC is basically chemical abortion, although it is clearly contraception and is ineffective if taken by someone already pregnant. This opinion from a supposed medical professional. I have never seen any of our pharmacists offer any assistance to someone seeking PLAN B other than to tell them we don't carry it. The real issue is that the stores do not stock EC and will do everything in their power short of outright refusal to not have to dispense it. While this practice will surely not generate the sensational coverage of pharmacist refusals, it is far more detrimental to women's health as it effectively denies access to emergency contraception and stigmatizes the patient seeking the drug.
Posted by NOTHING_117 05/31/2005 @ 12:23am
posted by Steve Fake at 6/10/2005 09:42:00 AM
1 Comments:
What we need is a clear distinction between two types of medical/pharmaceutical professionals: Hiipcratic and Progressive. The person practicing should choose one and clearly adhere to the standards of either a Hiipocratic or Progressive ethos. I'm sure that this would particularly improve obstetric care, since there'd be less need for "defensive medicine." If you choose a Progressive Ob/Gyn, you can know that he'll do all the tests to detect fetal abnormalities and alert you at the first sign of trouble so you can decide early on to proceed or abort. If you choose a Hipocratic Ob/Gyn, you can know that he'll assume you want to carry to term, and he'll only recommend tests that facilitate this goal.
This would reduce "wrongful births" among women who want the option of abortion, and reduce needless miscarriages and unnecessary testing among women who reject the option of abortion.
Ditto for pharmacies. Identify yourself as Progressive or Hipocratic, and patients can choose which they prefer to patronize, secure in the knowledge that their pharmacist will respect their choices, be it to pursue artifical birth control and/or possible abortifacients, or to avoid these things.
Post a Comment
<< Home